Self-hosting your own media considered harmful - I just received my second community guidelines violation for my video demonstrating the use of LibreELEC on a Raspberry Pi 5, for 4K video playback
Self-hosting your own media considered harmful - I just received my second community guidelines violation for my video demonstrating the use of LibreELEC on a Raspberry Pi 5, for 4K video playback
YouTube pulled a popular tutorial video from tech creator Jeff Geerling this week, claiming his guide to installing LibreELEC on a Raspberry Pi 5 violated policies against "harmful content." The video, which showed viewers how to set up their own home media servers, had been live for over a year and racked up more than 500,000 views. YouTube's automated systems flagged the content for allegedly teaching people "how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content."
Geerling says his tutorial covered only legal self-hosting of media people already own -- no piracy tools or copyright workarounds. He said he goes out of his way to avoid mentioning popular piracy software in his videos. It's the second time YouTube has pulled a self-hosting content video from Geerling. Last October, YouTube removed his Jellyfin tutorial, though that decision was quickly reversed after appeal. This time, his appeal was denied.
Notably, Youtube does not consider exploiting children for profit harmful.
Maybe stop relying on fucking youtube?
Are you suggesting that a guide on how to leave youtube should be elsewhere?
Thats like requiring to pass an exam to get access to the textbook.
The video is up again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hFas54xFtg
But at some point, he shows he's moving some files to LibreELEC, and he has a folder called "Chernobyl" - how can that possibly be legal, if the folder actually contains files with the HBO show of the same name? Just asking because I'm curious 😊
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)
It was released on DVD and Blu-ray, if he purchased the disc and ripped it to his media, and hasn't shared those files with anyone, then it is legal, as an exception to copyright in the US, where Jeff and Google are both based.
Jeff has stated on multiple occasions that he purchases and rips his media, and does not use piracy.
Also like… you can legally just name your file wtf ever you want, I can make a folder full of pics of my dogs and name it “Chernobyl” it’s not illegal to use a word to name a file
Ah - didn't know it had been released on physical media.
You don't know the exact content of the files. He did not show those vidoeclips. I dont know if you can buy that or not. Sure it can be indication but in general you dont know as it varies between video to video if it is possible to buy.
JG can also be found on Floatplane.
you say in the video that you use this setup to watch YouTube. I love watching YouTube with Kodi as it shows no ads. I guess they don't love that.
I'm not saying that justifies the strike, but it might be connected
Didn't they recently greenlight adblocker advertising?
People are quick to burn Youtube here when its clearly the american copyright reach that causes this.
YouTube took down the video because of its own policies, not because of copyright law. So we should be blaming YouTube.
I think it's easy to see exactly why if you consider how YouTube treats small content creators. If I post a video and companies claim copyright on it, the video gets demonetized and I might lose my account. I can respond and contest the claim and maybe I can win but I still lost money in the meantime, and perhaps more significantly, the companies that made their copyright claims will never face a consequence for attempting to burn my channel. In other words, if I get things wrong a few times I'll lose my channel and my income source, but if they get things wrong a million times, they face zero consequence.
And you might be inclined to blame the media companies. But again, this is YouTube doing what YouTube wants to do of its own volition, and not something that's required by law. If YouTube valued small-scale content creators and end users, it would create different policies.
I think it's both, a dumb system enforced in a somehow dumber way
“how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content.”
In the future, public domain media will be banned for harming corporate profits.
They are so pissed that we dare own anything. Fuck corpos.
Google should have been broken up years ago.
This kind of crap is driving popular creators, like Geerling, to move to other places. YT / Alphabet has lost the plot.
Sue YouTube. They won't change meaningfully until forced to.
I think what you mean to say is that we should be pressuring public officials to try to bust up Google's monopoly on many things. And we are doing that, and it is showing some progress. But there is much more work to be done.
I think ripping DVDs is still technically illegal, even though CSS has long since been broken. It is still illegal to circumvent encryption in a copy protection scheme, even if it's for your own personal use and the encryption scheme has been pwned.
I bet if he didn't mention that his videos were ripped from DVD, they might have left it up.
And beyond the law it depends also on enforcement
The US doesn't give a right to break Bluray copy protection and make a personal backup or access it on a device that otherwise couldn't play it. But the only enforcement is on people sharing copies, no one is prosecuted for format shifting their collection to play over their LAN
Iirc, you are entitled to have/create a backup of your physical media, as long as it is for your personal use.
But if I remember from back in the day, the DMCA doesn't have any exception for that. This is why CD ripping was legal, while DVD ripping was not. It had nothing to do with fair use or backups, but rather that DVDs have encryption, and CDs do not. Circumventing that encryption for any reason was illegal.
I don't think it has changed, but it's been a hot minute since the Cypherpunks all wore DeCSS T-Shirts....
Was it YouTube or someone else that reported him? I think YouTube is fully automated so it blocked him and is ignoring appeal because of the previous complaint.
The use of "self-hosting" is a little confusing here. To be clear, he wasn't self-hosting his video. It was published on YouTube, and the guidelines and procedures in question are Google's.
Edit: I'm not defending Google's actions. It's just that the title gave the impression that a video he had self-hosted was somehow subject to "community guidelines", which didn't make sense.
Edit 2: Ten downvotes in less than an hour, on a clarification comment? Wow. I'm disappointed to see that level of targeted negativity here. What rotten behavior. :(
You're being downvoted for being factually wrong about the title. It's not targeted negativity.
To add on, the video is about self hosting, it was not self hosted itself.
Its just confusing to you.